4.3 Article

Topiramate for the management of methamphetamine dependence: a pilot randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

期刊

FUNDAMENTAL & CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 30, 期 3, 页码 282-289

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/fcp.12178

关键词

clinical trial; methamphetamine dependence; topiramate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To date, no medication has been approved as an effective treatment for methamphetamine dependence. Topiramate has attracted considerable attention as a treatment for the dependence on alcohol and stimulants. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effect of topiramate for methamphetamine dependence. This study was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. In the present investigation, 62 methamphetamine-dependent adults were enrolled and randomized into two groups, and received topiramate or a placebo for 10 weeks in escalating doses from 50 mg/day to the target maintenance dose of 200 mg/day. Addiction severity index (ASI) and craving scores were registered every week. The Beck questionnaire was also given to each participant at baseline and every 2 weeks during the treatment. Urine samples were collected at baseline and every 2 weeks during the treatment. Fifty-seven patients completed 10 weeks of the trial. There was no significant difference between both groups in the mean percentage of prescribed capsules taken by the participants. At week six, the topiramate group showed a significantly lower proportion of methamphetamine-positive urine tests in comparison with the placebo group (P = 0.01). In addition, there were significantly lower scores in the topiramate group in comparison with the placebo group in two domains of ASI: drug use severity (P < 0.001) and drug need (P < 0.001). Furthermore, the craving score (duration) significantly declined in the topiramate patients compared to those receiving the placebo. In conclusion, the results of this trial suggest that topiramate may be beneficial for the treatment of methamphetamine dependence.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据